1.4 Personnel

1.41 Personnel Selection

The professional and nonprofessional staff of the family court and of all agencies providing services to juveniles subject to the jurisdiction of the family court should be selected on a merit basis and should be comprised of individuals, including minority group members and women, from a wide variety of backgrounds.

A personnel selection process and a set or sets of criteria should be developed and utilized by each of the agencies of the juvenile justice service system, to afford impartiality and objectivity in the development of job specifications and the selection of those who can best fill the job.

Source:

See generally Institute of Judicial Administration/Ameri

can Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice

Standards, Standards Relating to Juvenile Probation Function, Standard 4.1(d)(e) (draft, 1976) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Probation Function].

Commentary

This standard specifies a number of factors to be considered when selecting professional and nonprofessional staff for the family court and other agencies that provide services to juveniles. Among the factors to be taken into account in the personnel selection process are the backgrounds of the candidates, the merit of each candidate, and factors to assure minority group representation within the youth service system.

Each juvenile's background-and accordingly the types of attention he/she will require from the system-varies widely. The National Advisory Committee therefore recommends that persons providing services to youth should be selected from a wide variety of backgrounds. By matching up the varied backgrounds and skills of personnel with the needs of particular juveniles, the juvenile justice system will render its services more efficiently and effectively. Cf. IJA/ABA, Probation Function, supra at Standard 4.1 and Commentary. This standard also recommends that personnel be selected on a "merit" basis. The personnel best qualified for a particular service function should be assigned to that function. Merit selection can only serve to enhance the effectiveness of the youth service system and is a hallmark of these standards. See, e.g., Standards 2.253, 3.123, 3.131, 3.141, 4.2122, and 4.251.

and women should be included among those serving youth. More than in other fields of employment, a particular background-including the backgrounds of minority group members and of women—is a genuine occupational qualification for staff positions serving juveniles. If a juvenile within the system comes from a particular minority background, or is female, then personnel with similar backgrounds can often be especially effective in dealing with that particular juvenile. In some cases, where a youth is predisposed to communicate or respond to persons with backgrounds similar to his/her own, a juvenile justice system which fails to provide such a staff person will not meet its most basic responsibilities to that juvenile.

This standard further recommends the development of a specific personnel selection process, including a set of criteria to be used by agencies within the juvenile justice system. Such standardized procedures and criteria should enhance impartiality and objectivity in the development of job specifications, and assist the selection of those persons best suited to do particular jobs. In addition to giving guidance for personnel selection to agencies throughout the system, a formal selection process helps prevent the fragmentation of staff energies and efforts by utilizing personnel in accord with their backgrounds, experience, training, and specific skills.

The National Advisory Committee has strongly recommended the family court should be a co-equal part of the highest court of general jurisdiction so that the quality of justice offered juveniles is at least comparable to that available

to adults in civil or criminal matters. See Standard 3.121. The recommendations in this standard for rigorous “merit” selection of court and noncourt juveniles service personnel, together with similarly high selection standards for judges themselves, see Standards 3.123 and 3.122, and effective personnel training programs, see Standards 1.421-1.429, should assure that the family court can function effectively, as a division of the highest trial court, to serve both the juvenile and the community.

Related Standards

1.421-1.429 Personnel Training

2.253

3.121

3.123

3.131

3.141

4.2122

Personnel Policies

Relationship to Other Courts

Judicial Qualifications and Selection

Representation by Counsel-For the Juvenile Organization of Intake Units

Staff Qualifications

Foster Homes-Staff

1.42 Training

1.421 Law Enforcement Personnel

All law enforcement officers should be provided with training on the law and procedures governing matters subject to the jurisdiction of the family court; the policies established for those matters by the local law enforcement agencies and agencies responsible for intake and protective services; the local and state groups and agencies providing services to juveniles and their families; causes of delinquency and family conflict; the most common legal problems involving youth in the local community; personal and family crisis intervention techniques; ethnic, cultural, and minority relations. Inservice education programs should be provided to all law enforcement officers to assure that they are aware of changes in law, policy and programs. Law enforcement officers assigned to the juvenile unit of the police department or designated as patrol unit juvenile specialists should receive, in addition to the training described above, instruction on methods for controlling and preventing delinquency and family conflict, and should periodically visit programs and facilities providing services to juveniles.

Sources:

See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report to the Task Force on Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 7.6-7.8 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; and R. Kobetz and B. Bosarge, Juvenile Justice Administration (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1973).

Commentary

This standard recommends that all law enforcement personnel be provided with preservice and inservice education programs, to assure quality police service to juveniles and to the general public, and to assure that police responses to juvenile problems are premised upon the most accurate and up-to-date sociological, legal, and factual information.

This standard specifically provides that all law enforcement personnel whether or not they ultimately may be assigned to a police juvenile unit, see Standard 2.253-should be provided with both preservice and inservice training relevant to police work with juveniles and families. Accord, Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 7.7 and Commentary. All police officers, even those who never specialize in youth service work, are likely to encounter and to intervene into quarrels,

instances of apparent neglect, abuse, or delinquency, cases where children are estranged from their families, and instances where children are lost or endangered on the streets. See generally Standards 2.21-2.248. Therefore, each and every police officer needs to be informed about the family court, about the services available to juveniles, and about the special problems of juveniles and families. Accordingly, this standard explicitly provides that each law enforcement recruit should be provided with preservice training regarding family court procedures, the policies of agencies involved in the juvenile justice system, and the character of the agencies themselves, and should be instructed about the causes of delinquency and of family conflict, legal issues, intervention techniques, and ethnic, cultural, and minority relations. In addition, the standard also provides for continuing education for all police officers-again, regardless of the officers' specialty or unit assignment. Such inservice training should be designed to keep all officers up-to-date in laws, policies, and programs pertaining to juveniles.

The standard further recommends that officers who are assigned to the juvenile unit of the police department or who are juvenile specialists, see Standard 2.253, should receive additional inservice training about juvenile police work above and beyond the juvenile-related training which is provided to all officers. This additional inservice training for officers specializing in police work should include instruction in methods for dealing with and preventing delinquency and family conflict, and regular visits to programs and facilities which serve juveniles.

For each training program discussed above, complete cooperation between youth service agencies and law enforcement personnel is necessary to assure up-to-date training programs of high quality.

Law enforcement work directed at juveniles has traditionally been perceived by many police officers as "social work," as wholly unrelated to "real" police work, as a job for women, or as ultimately a dead end. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 7.6. The National Advisory Committee recommends that every effort be made to reverse completely the traditional perception of juvenile police work as an inferior job assignment. Such efforts must include (1) the establishment of stringent basic entry qualifications, see Standard 2.253; (2) the establishment of special selection procedures, Id.; and (3) the special preservice and inservice training programs recommended in this standard. With

1.422 Judicial Personnel

Family court judges should be provided with preservice training on the law and procedures governing matter subject by the family court, local law enforcement agencies, and agencies responsible for intake and protective service; the local and state groups and agencies providing services to juveniles and other families; the causes of delinquency and family conflict; the methods for preventing and controlling such conduct and conflict; and the most common legal problems involving youth in the local community. Inservice education programs should be provided to judges in the family court to assure that they are aware of changes in law, policy, and programs. In addition, each family court judge should periodically visit programs and facilities providing services to juveniles and being utilized as disposi

tional alternatives.

Sources:

See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 17.1, 17.2, and 17.5 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; and R. Kobetz and B. Bosarge, Juvenile Justice Administration (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1973).

Commentary

Preservice training and inservice education programs should be provided to family court judges in accord with this standard. Other standards-setting groups and commentators have made similar recommendations. See Report of the Task Force, supra; and Kobetz and Bosarge, supra. Kobetz and Bosarge have pointed out:

The task of a juvenile court judge is a demanding one. It requires judicial administrative skills, knowledge of psychological, sociological, and emotional problems afflicting children and their parents, and an ability to wisely determine the most suitable means by which a delinquent child can be rehabilitated. These skills and abilities. . . must be learned and acquired through education, training, and experience. Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 326.

There are at least three fundamental responsibilities of juvenile court judges: (1) to protect the community; (2) to act in the best interest and for the welfare of the child; and (3) to uphold the dignity of the law and public faith in the judicial system. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 17.1; and Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 283. To insure that these rules and responsibilities are met effectively and efficiently,

this standard recommends that judges receive extensive preservice and inservice training in all areas relevant to the juvenile justice system. These areas are explicitly set out in the text of this standard.

The quality of juvenile court judges has been frequently criticized. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 17.1. Part of this problem can be attributed to the fact that most family court judges receive training only on the job. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 17.2. Although such practical onthe-job training is not without some value, see Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 311, this standard recommends that such informal training can and should be supplemented and facilitated by formal preservice training. Because of the unique combination of roles played by the family court judge, special judicial training is highly important. Accord, Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 299; and Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 17.2.

By providing juvenile court judges with preservice training, judges will be better able to play the leadership role that is necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the family court. See Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 284. Also, through the contact with law enforcement agencies and other juvenile agencies recommended in this standard, the judge will be able to understand the material and psychological needs of the court organization and of the juveniles and adults who appear before the family court. Id. The preservice judicial training and orientation set out in this standard should be made mandatory. Cf. Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 17.2. The subject matter to be covered during preservice training should be tailored to family court concerns, and specific subject matter areas are explicitly set out in the text of this standard. The curricula suggested by the Task Force conforms to the curricula recommended here. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 17.2.

This standard also provides for continuing inservice education programs for judges. Such inservice education programs should focus upon relevant changes in juvenile law, policies, programs, and procedures. At least some inservice training programs should be interdisciplinary in nature, to help judges make the difficult social and psychological judgements which family court judges are so often called upon to make.

This standard, like the Report of the Task Force, does not specify how often judges should receive supplementary inservice training. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 17.2 and Commentary. Kobetz and Bosarge, supra would require a juvenile court judge to attend an inservice training institute at least once every five years, and would have state

governments establish minimum statutory requirements governing continuing education of juvenile court judges. Even though this standard does not mandate specific intervals, the National Advisory Committee believes that inservice training should be considered an integral part of the judge's responsibilities. Accord, Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 17.2. Obviously, if judges are to be aware of changes in law, policy, and program, then inservice training must be provided at regular intervals, and once every five years as suggested by Kobetz and Bosarge, supraseems too infrequent. Some formal continuing judicial education should probably occur at least once every six months. Yearly conferences with representatives from the community, the bar, and the judiciary would be another useful form of inservice training for judges. See generally Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 284-316. Such joint conferences could also facilitate open communication among the representatives attending, and provide a forum within which family court judges could informally exercise their leadership role within the community.

This standard further provides that each family court judge should make periodic, on-site visits to correction and other facilities serving juveniles. It is the strong belief of the National Advisory Committee that only by inspecting juvenile facilities and programs for themselves can family court judges understand the impact of detention, disposition, and other judicial orders upon a juvenile. Accord, Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 17.2 and Commentary; and Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 320. Particularly in the case of residential correctional or inpatient mental health facilities, only personal visits can adequately inform judges whether such placements will truly be in a youth's best interest. The

commonplace hearsay written or oral reports by program representatives or social workers describing such facilities are always-by their very nature-incomplete, and may be misleading. These visits by judges should occur without advance notice to the facility or program to be inspected.

Unlike the Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 17.5, this standard does not specifically recommend that nonjudicial court support personnel be directly involved in training programs for judicial personnel. Such involvement is not critical. The National Advisory Committee does recommend, however, that there should be a constant flow and interchange of information and ideas between family court judges and court support staff at all levels. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 17.5 and Commentary.